Forum:Featured Article voting/Archive/2009 discussions
New System Proposal What does anybody think of the idea of coming up with the new AM of several months at the same time? It'd be quicker that way. —'Excelsior,' The Flash - ([[User talk:SuperFlash101|Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!]]) 22:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC) :Maybe just one month ahead of time? felinoel ~ (Talk) 12:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC) On IRC, a large cast of users came up with a system that can work. Toph kept track of it all so I don't know when it's gonna be pitched. Anyways, just letting you know. The Flash {talk} 14:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC) New System Proposal (Different system then the one above) Reading these posts for the Article of the Month is just killing me, it is way too confusing and troublesome. We need to have a cleaner way than this for voting, and so I designed up a way using the current month's results as of so far. Any comments? felinoel ~ (Talk) 22:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC) :Okay, yeah, let's add that to the one above that a large cast of the community agreed on. The Flash {talk} 23:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC) :: Our method of selecting a featured article has changed and the template isn't being used any more. However, with the introduction of Wikia's new skin and the narrower space for article content, the Infobox FA template will have to be discontinued. The three column format makes each column tall and skinny. — RRabbit42 (leave a message) 14:27, October 8, 2010 (UTC) Article of the Month I thought this was getting replaced? felinoel ~ (Talk) 22:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC) :With What? Phin68 talk to Phin68 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Archive page In case we want to tidy things up a bit, I've created an archive page for the older votes. I was thinking we could just list the nominations for a month and show which one was selected. The discussion and voting would remain on record in the archive. Kind of like this: I used a table just to keep my idea grouped together amidst this discussion. The real list would be formatted exactly as it is now, with just the discussion parts and individual votes removed. If we did this, people could still see what was nominated and selected in the past, yet still get down to the current month's nominations quicker. — RRabbit42 03:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I like this idea, this will help keep track of all the nominations easily, because of that, I support this.—Ardi~(Talk)~(Correspondence) 05:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC) System inclusions (closes July 16) ---- This voting is '''closed.' Please do not modify it.'' Okay, a bunch of us users came up with a system on IRC. It's not very different, the only thing is: #It will be called "Featured articles" (already done) #Self-nominations are fine, but please give good reasons to why it should be featured. #There will be a new "FA" each week #People can nominate an FA anytime but must give actual reasons for it #To nominate, a user just has to type in the name of the article in the create box at the top of the forum, fill out the nomination and sign it. #Only current nominations will be on the voting pages - all others will be nominated #Reviewers are strongly suggested to give opinions on things needing to be fixed, such as typos, structures, or episode references. If one finds nothing wrong with it at all, then you don't have to. #All old "AM"s will be removed of status and may be nominated for FA status six months after they were nominated - I.E., If an article was made AM in March, 2009, then it can be renominated in September, 2009. Everyone okay with it? The Flash {talk} 00:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC) :*Updated. The Flash {talk} 01:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC) ::*Updated again. The Flash {talk} 01:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC) :Since I was part of the "Bunch of Users", I am fine with all of this.—Ardi~(Talk)~(Correspondence) 05:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC) :This is fine as I see it. Perryfan (Talk) 22:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC) :Sounds like a good plan. --Zaggy1024 (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC) ::Ditto. Phin68 talk to Phin68 23:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC) :::Due to the overwhelming amount of yays here, I feel I need to express my nay. I just think an article every week is just too often and sort of downgrades the honor since we will be scrambling for any article eventually. Just wanted to get that in. felinoel ~ (Talk) 23:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC) ::RR gave the modified version. Two weeks is half a month - by then, we already have an AM, so we can easily have a few FAs. The Flash {talk} 04:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC) :I agree. —M i 03:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Modifications During the admin conference two days ago, we came up with the following modifications and adjustments to the above points: 2. If you are going to nominate an article where you are the sole author or made major contributions to it, you need to be objective in why you are nominating the article. 3. We're actually looking at twice monthly for the Featured Articles. 7. These items can fine-tune an article, bringing it from "pretty good" or "best of what we've got" status into truly worthy of being a Featured Article. 8. If we happen to run out of new nominations before the 6 month period for old "Article of the Month" pages ends, then they become eligible again to fill things in, starting from oldest AM to newest. (Hopefully, we fill in a lot more articles in the meantime so we give new ones a chance before we have to resort to this.) 1, 4, 5, 6: No changes. Other adjustments: 1. We will have a short list of the FA criteria at the top of the page, with links to further details about the criteria, and a link to the archives. (I trimmed past nominations down about a week ago, but we're going to try to keep this page for only the current nominations). 2. We're going to explore ways of presenting the voting choices differently. One idea is to have a "create nomination" button that will create a new discussion page and fill it in, kind of like how you create a new episode from the main page. This page will then link to those newly-created discussion pages of the individual nominations. That way, the discussions can go on as long as needed without people getting lost where one nomination ends and another begins. 3. Featured Articles will bear the FA badge for 2 years. At the end of the two years, it will be reviewed to see if the quality of the article is still up to FA status. This one might need re-thinking because of #8 above, and because I just realized that it will mean that we have 48 Featured Articles during any two year period. We currently have 552 articles, so is 9% too high a percentage of Featured Articles? 4. In parallel with the FA status review, we will include a process for nominating an article to be removed from FA status at any time prior to the 2 years (or whatever we decide). :::::: — RRabbit42 04:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC) :::So..? There will be both FAs and AMs? felinoel ~ (Talk) 10:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC) :: Yes, until time passes as each AM reverts back to a standard article when their AM status expires. When all AM statuses have expired, then we can retire the AM designation. There will be no new AM articles. Then there will be only FAs. — RRabbit42 14:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC) :::Oh, thats not what I meant, I meant there would be new AMs as well as new FAs, from your response though I gather there won't be... felinoel ~ (Talk) 14:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC) ::::Um....huh? RR, I thought we were going to just expire all the AMs now? Why wait two years to end an article's retired status? I don't see much point in it. But to answer fel, no, just FAs. The Flash {talk} 14:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC) ::Okay. Got that part wrong. I thought we were letting AMs phase out. Ending AM status now is okay with me. — RRabbit42 14:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC) ::::Okay. I actually wasn't sure, I don't think we decided on it, but maybe Toph will remember...? The Flash {talk} 14:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC) :::See thats what I thought, but then this discussion confused me, darn, would have liked to see both AMs and FAs going on... felinoel ~ (Talk) 14:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC) ::Really, why? It'd just be overly complicated and useless, right? The Flash {talk} 15:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC) :::Because then you would have the important article, and then mini-important articles? felinoel ~ (Talk) 15:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC) ::Nah. Besides, this is not about importance, it's about quality. An article must be in tip-top shape, the best it can be, before it can get this status. That's why people are strongly suggested to give improvements, so it's not "really good" or "the best on the wiki," but the greatest and best it can be. The Flash {talk} 15:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC) :::Let me reword myself, because then you would have the excellent quality article, and then mildly good quality articles? felinoel ~ (Talk) 01:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC) ::Again, I state, not needed. Besides, let's not rush ourselves. We should take it slow before we add even more, which I still don't see the point in anyhow. The Flash {talk} 03:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC) :::But, isn't it already being implemented? felinoel ~ (Talk) 11:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC) ::No, read RR's previous comment. He misread what we discussed on IRC. Mid-level-FAs (like, Good Articles) are unneeded for now and too complicated as we're just about to start FAs. I I'll be going around with new icons I'm about to ask RR to make if he can and striking out the AMs and tagging them in the back to note this will be eligible in...whatever time is needed. The Flash {talk} 17:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC) :Ok. —M i 03:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC) ----